The
Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras
High Court, which had denied maternity leave to a government school teacher on
the grounds that she was giving birth to her third child, citing a State policy
limiting such benefits to two children. A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka
and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that maternity benefits are an essential
component of reproductive rights, and maternity leave is a fundamental part of
those benefits.
“We have
delved into the concept of reproductive rights and have held that maternity
benefits are a part of reproductive rights and maternity leave is integral to
maternity benefits. Therefore, the impugned order has been set aside. The
division bench order has been set aside,” the Supreme Court observed.
"Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Reproductive rights
are now recognized as part of several intersecting domains of international
human rights law viz. the right to health, right to privacy, right to equality
and non-discrimination and the right to dignity."
The
Court overturned the challenged judgment, which had stated that maternity leave
is not a fundamental right but merely a statutory right or one derived from
service conditions.
The
judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan observed: "Insofar the present case is
concerned it is true that appellant has two biological children out of her
first wedlock. But that was before entry into her service. Post entry into
service and from her subsisting marriage, this is her first child. It has come
on record that the two children out of her first wedlock are not residing with
her but with their father, who is having their custody.
object
of having two child norm as part of the measures to control population growth
in the country and the object of providing maternity benefit to women employees
including maternity leave in circumstances such as in the present case are not
mutually exclusive. The two must be harmonized in a purposive and rationale
manner to achieve the social objective."
The background of this case is a government
school teacher was denied maternity leave for her third child by the State,
citing a two-child policy. She had two children from a previous marriage who
were in her ex-husband’s custody, and the third child was her first after
joining government service. A single judge of the Madras High Court ruled in
her favor, holding that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, does not limit the
number of children for maternity leave and that service rules conflicting with
the Act are void under the Constitution. The State was directed to grant her
one year of maternity leave.
However, the Division Bench of the High
Court overturned this decision, holding that the two-child norm applied and
that maternity leave is a statutory or service-related right, not a fundamental
one. It also ruled that the Maternity Benefit Act did not apply to government
servants governed by separate service rules, and relied on a similar
Uttarakhand High Court decision to deny her relief.
info@adhwaitha.com